Lairig Marketing

The Best Time To Send Email Is...The Best Time

A New Year’s resolution we’ve already broken is to ignore crummy marketing research. Although maybe this one doesn’t count, as today we dump on a study released last year.

GetResponse, an email service provider, released a report in early Fall 2012, after carefully tracking 21 million emails wafting across its platform (how “private” do you feel now?). Its findings and conclusions?

- Nearly a quarter of emails are opened within the first hour of landing in a person’s inbox.
- Two-thirds of emails are sent during business hours.
- The best open rates and click-thru rates are during business hours.
- If you really, really want to succeed, send emails between 8 AM and 10 AM, or 3 PM and 4 PM and you will increase your engagement by A WHOPPING 6 % !!!

Stunning, no?

No.

The quest for “best time to send an email” has been asked and answered many times before. We believe it began sometime around 2004, and has been updated every 18 months thereafter (typically by an attention-starved email service provider).

At this juncture, only marketing newbies and know-nothing digital “gurus” could be excited by the same info being trotted out once again.

Besides being stale, there is little logic to presenting the best time to send as a new customer “engagement” opportunity. Think of it as follows:

That roughly 25% of all emails are read within an hour of inbox arrival does nothing but tell us the proportion of U.S. workers who sit at their desks all day, working via computers. We’ll venture a guess, and say that population is nearly, um, 25%.

GetResponse’s underwhelming study underscores one of our four big marketing questions for 2013 – #2 to be exact (link here). If you want higher open rates and click-thru rates, then you must venture to know everything you can about YOUR customers, especially their media consumption behavior.

The generic “best time to send an email” can’t be the same for every marketer. Let this be the year that marketers find out What Time Is It.

Marketing’s Four Questions For 2013 – Part 3

Now that you have decided to leave your media mix “as is” for next year AND invest in some rigorous customer research, let’s move on to the next big marketing question for 2013. The answer to which, unlike that of question #2, is going to be a lot of fun for you.

The Third Marketing Question For 2013 goes like this:

Are we going to create an absolute sh&t load of video content about our business in 2013, or what?

We’re feeling generous for the third time in a row, so once again we’ll give you the answer:

Yes.

That is the only correct answer, because you just can’t say no to these “subquestions”:

>>> Does the time spent by consumers watching video outpace consumption of all other types of media combined? More time than some people spend sleeping?

>>> Is video content easily digitized and uploadable to our own website, YouTube, Facebook, et al.? “Self” viral?

>>> Are we now finally convinced that every other way we have tried to express our brand personality and authenticity, including asking customers to make videos, is bollocks?

>>> Would we rather spend a few hours making a dozen 90-second videos about how to use our products or services versus spending three months in an endless series of rewrites just to put together a stupid newsletter jammed full of watered-down slop that no one reads?

The answer to the Third Marketing Question of 2013 – why aren’t we making video content left and right? – is easy. We have been intimidated and afraid. But now we are not.

We have seen the light.

Cord Cutters’ Future Getting More Expensive Every Day

We were the only ones to go out on a limb and debunk the cord-cutting-is-going-to-spell-the-end-of-Pay-TV crusade, way back in November of 2010. Most of the shills and hacks have since retreated, but for those who still believe the “threat” is imminent, we have (more) bad news for you.

Unless they are stealing their shows (aka, illegally), the future for cord cutters won’t require shades. Instead, get ready to bust out that credit card or PayPal account number.

Exhibit A: YouTube
We panned YouTube’s $100 million investment in “professional” channel development earlier this year (which later turned out to be $150 million). While the site’s ad revenues are indeed soaring, this one doesn’t look like it’s paying off as completely as planned.

At the end of July, YouTube said it was tossing in another $200 million or so. This is called “doubling down” in betting parlance, and is usually not seen as playing a strong hand.

Then, to add to the mystery, Robert Kyncl, “global head of content” at YouTube, made some sort of statement at a recent Abu Dhabi Media Summit [sic] about Google considering an access fee for at least a handful of the better YouTube channels.

Imagine that. A cord cutter one day arrives at the AwesomenessTV channel and a screen pops up demanding $2.50 to watch something awesome. Awesome, indeed.

Exhibit B: Vimeo
In late September, YouTube competitor Vimeo announced “Tip Jar,” a method for getting viewers to, well, tip the cook, if you will. Much more importantly though, Vimeo also said it would introduce – here it comes, that hated word – PAYWALL technology, sometime in “the next several months.”

Imagine that. Vimeo envisions a day very soon where the cooks (content producers) will say “f&ck tips, I can’t make this sh&t for free.” And will result in a lot of cord-cutting viewers saying “f&ck Vimeo.”

Exhibit C: Hulu
Meanwhile, analysts on the Street and in the Cubes are all agog and aghast at Hulu’s recent viewer numbers. August unique visitors were reported at 12 million, collapsing from December’s figure of 19 million.

In addition, Hulu reported that hours viewed came in at 65 million in August. Another collapse. March’s level was 156 million hours.

Hulu was the cord cutter’s “go to.” It would appear that “good and free” content is getting pretty hard to find on Hulu lately.

The near-term message to cord cutters from all of this would make for a nice little subway advert: “See Something. Pay Something.”

Don’t Worry – Microsoft CAN Keep A Secret

Long-time readers know we are not pro-Microsoft, a company akin to a V8 that fires on two cylinders on its best day. Other than Xbox, Mister Softee hasn’t had anything new that’s been worth talking about in years. (Another in a long line of multimillion-dollar campaigns launches this evening, for the iPad “killer” Surface).

How odd, then, to come across an article in the Saturday Business section of The New York Times this weekend about a “privacy” kerfuffle in Redmond. Like a billion other companies, Microsoft changed some data-handling policies without being upfront with its customers.

So what? Who cares?

We’ve told readers several times before that your biggest “privacy” fears should be directed at:
1) payment processors (see Global Payments, Inc.)
2) retailers, offline as much as online (see TJX Companies, Inc.)
3) inside jobs (see “contractor loses laptop”)

Yet, somehow, this warranted an 1125-word article. Deep within (770 words, to be exact), the two authors tried too late to put the situation in its proper context:

"Online advertising remains a small fraction of Microsoft’s overall business, accounting for $2.6 billion, or about 3.5 percent, of the company’s revenue during its last fiscal year, which ended June 30, according to Microsoft’s filings with securities regulators."

Too bad these two nudniks don’t read Lairig Marketing. They’d know to look at profit, not revenue. And they’d crap their pants to know that Microsoft’s “Online Services Division” (which is more than just “online advertising”) depresses the company’s overall OPERATING PROFIT by 10% every single day, and has, for the past four fiscal years (and that even excludes the SIX BILLION DOLLAR write-off last fiscal year of “online advertiser” aQuantive).

So, if Microsoft can keep billions of dollars of losses a secret from the fabled New York Times, then you have nothing to fear with its plans to pull everything it knows about who you are and what you do into one place. And do God knows what with it.

Besides, Microsoft needs to conserve its computing power for calculating (a) the right time and (b) the right price for its Yahoo acquisition. Another secret that lies just below the Microsoft Surface.

You Either Travel. Or You Don’t.

The anti-intellectualism movement in America has set deep roots in the marketing world. One way, of many, that we see this played out is through the current “either or/black & white” suppositions of the many so-called marketing gurus. Such as:

“You either use social media and succeed wildly, or you use traditional media and watch your business perish.”

Here’s another:

“You either spend all of your money on mobile advertising and thereby reach everyone at all times, or you spend it on TV ads and flush all that money down the toilet.”

There’s never an option with these folks to do two or more things at once. Sort of like the position a six-year-old would take on the playground during recess.

The latest “choice” raging among the marketing digerati is this:
“You either represent your business via a mobile app, or a mobile website. NOT BOTH.”

To help us decide, the folks at Nielsen track users on smartphones to see just exactly where they spend their time. They even go through the effort of segmenting the various user behavior into different “categories.” As an example, two weeks ago Nielsen released research on what it called the “travel” category.

Here’s what it found, to help us all get to the bottom of this mission critical app vs. website debate:

“During June 2012…U.S. Android and iOS users spent 95 % of their time accessing travel information from travel apps, versus only 5 % from the mobile Web.”

If you took this at face value, like every other marketer, you would conclude that mobile apps win, and you would pull the plug on your mobile website. But wait…

Nielsen’s sloppy categorization for “travel” included Google Maps. You know, that utility everyone uses to find out where that shoe store with the Groupon coupon is on the other side of town. That is “travel” ?

It’s a big issue for Nielsen’s study, because Google Maps accounted for THREE-FOURTHS of all mobile time – apps or website – in the “travel” category.

Further, when you look at the “travel” apps that rank behind Google Maps, it’s not until you hit the #10 position until you come across a real travel player – Southwest Airlines. Numbers 2 through 9 are more maps, GPS navigators, a restaurant review site, and GasBuddy.

Balance this “corrected” list against Nielsen’s top ten for mobile websites. Positions #2, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10 are true travel domains, like Priceline and Expedia.

We conclude, then, Nielsen’s conclusion that “it’s an app world after all” holds no water.

We said so in the comments section of Nielsen’s blog post where it announced these dramatic findings. After seven days, the company has yet to respond. Which means it won’t.

Because in the new world of marketing, you either stand your ground behind obviously faulty data, or your suck it up and try again.

Apparently there are no “travel” maps that can show you how to do both.

The Weather Channel’s Billion-Dollar Mobile Advertising Opportunity

Everyone talks about the weather. “Nice day, today.” “Hot enough for ya?” “Looks like rain.”

Everyone has a computer. One of every two people has a smartphone. And if you believe the “data,” at least one of every four people has a tablet of some sort.

So how to explain that almost none of them take advantage of the world’s second-greatest invention of the past 20 years? (The best invention is seedless watermelon, but we digress.)

Why do people leave the house without an umbrella 30 minutes before a major downpour hits? Why do they leave the office at the height of a storm, when waiting ten minutes would have kept them dry as a bone? Why do they wonder “If I go jogging in the park right now, will I be struck by lightning?”?

And why, we ask respectfully, were ten people struck by lightning, one of them killed, at Pocono Raceway August 5th during a beyond-obvious dangerous weather situation?

Just one click away from all the random bullsh&t on The Weather Channel is a link for “Weather In Motion,” the great invention referred to earlier. Beautiful technology that allows the average Joe to view weather radar over the past two hours in ten-minute increments, as current as five minutes ago.

You can see the green “clouds” (= rain) coming your way. You can view yellow blotches (= heavy-ass rain) on the march. And you can freak out watching the red spots (= lightning) bearing down on you.

Perhaps The Weather Channel doesn’t promote this unbelievably valuable tool because viewers would then have no need to tune in Jim Cantore getting tossed about. But from a mobile Internet point of view, we suggest The Weather Channel is leaving big money on the table.

Remember “The Year Of Mobile”? The idea that mobile advertising spending would soon eclipse that of TV? We have, of course, mocked that notion in several prior posts, going all the way back to 2008 (by our count, we are now in the 6th iteration of “The Year Of Mobile”). Still and all, eMarketer projections say the U.S. is nearing $3 billion in mobile advertising spend. Nothing to sneeze at.

So, then, here is The Weather Channel’s opportunity. Take a look at its mobile app. Note that the “Weather In Motion” tool is once again buried. To get to it, click on “Map.” After it slowly boots up, click on the arrow button.

There you go – your mobile “Weather In Motion." The Weather Channel’s, and perhaps the world’s, best kept secret. No more guessing wrong about taking that umbrella or not. No more deadly "surprise" lightning strikes.

The first step to seizing the billion-dollar advertising opportunity, then: market the sh&t out of this “button” to let tens of millions of potential users know where it is, how to get to it, and how valuable it is. (And, while we’re at it, improve the functionality so that the prior two hours of radar history moves much more slowly than it does now.)

The second step is to sell exclusive advertising on this space. Currently, The Weather Channel rotates the same retard ads you find on its main website – refinancing, dating, and “flat stomach” banners. It should instead work with Apple’s iAd geniuses to truly and finally develop “engaging” mobile ads from real (i.e., Fortune 50) advertisers.

Get “Weather In Motion” on everyone’s mobile radar, and The Weather Channel can turn its umbrella upside down.

Online Video Advertising Rules !

Pretend you settle into the couch at home and turn on the TV. You push the GUIDE button, scroll the listings and select a channel. The normal screen comes back, but…

…First, a commercial appears for the new Silverado pick-up. Surprised, you hit GUIDE again and choose a different station. You move fast, though, because the Silverado ad continues to play in the small upper right panel of the listings screen.

Your next selected channel takes over the screen. But…

…First, a commercial appears for the new Silverado pick-up. THE SAME ONE AS BEFORE.

What the f&ck?, you shout. You hit the MUTE button, so at least you don’t have to hear the dopey passengers’ dialog. You press GUIDE again, select another channel, keeping your eyes off the upper right panel. You quickly select another channel. But…

F&ck! Silverado again! You outfox the system by selecting a music channel. Hah!, you say, no video, no ad! You unmute the sound. But…

…Before the music starts, the Silverado ad plays – like a radio spot.

You jam the MUTE button, close your eyes, and count to 30. You unmute, and there is your music. Ahhhhhh. Now, let’s try a show again.

You key in your first choice again, and goddam*, hello Silverado.

This, of course, is not your real TV experience. But it does replicate what you will suffer through today if you go to the websites for The Weather Channel, ESPN, CBS News, et al. “This totally sucks” doesn’t do it justice.

Yet we are told by the digerati that video ads are the future for advertisers – that they should transfer all their spending on TV spots over to online video. And give the viewer a worse experience than TV could ever imagine.

While they are at it, they also tell us that no one – NO ONE – watches TV ads anymore. Further, they claim to have surveys and data tracking to “prove” that Internet consumers prefer pre-roll ads, and that most watch them to completion.

Yet the time Americans spend watching “regular” TV increases every year. And advertisers continue to plow money into TV spots.

That is a strange outcome for the theory that TV, and TV ads, are being ignored.

One wonders what that says about online video advertising ignorance.

Can AOL Patch Patch ?

Every time you turn around, it seems, the pundits at BIA/Kelsey raise their forecast for “local” digital marketing by another half-trillion dollars or so. The folks at AOL’s community news division, Patch, aren't getting the memo.

The inside skinny says AOL (which we are supposed to spell as “Aol.” but c’mon) lost around $100 million on Patch last year. Troubling, when you consider it operates upward of 850 community news sites. It would take an extra $2000 a week in ad sales for each site for Patch to be at breakeven.

Can it be done?

Patch often gets thrown under the "content farm" bus, perhaps a bit unfairly. This isn’t really a “scrape” operation, and it has a well-regarded management team and editorial board to boot.

In addition, the Patch sites try hard to solicit reader input – blogs, pics, event listings. There is decent effort given to support of local charities. Its heart is in the right place.

But go to your local Patch site now and take in the look and feel of the site. Try out the navigation. And note the advertising layout. This has About.com written all over it.

We’d point the designers at Patch to the Evian site we wrote about last week – "The Source" – for some inspiration. And the navigation needs a complete rethink (example – do small-town folk really need a separate “Commute” tab?).

Site design suggestions don’t directly drive revenue. They would, though, drive higher readership, which makes a better sales proposition to local advertisers.

Where Patch can boost revenue directly is in an area underappreciated across all content sites – the comments section. If there is one thing locals have, it’s an opinion. And they are not afraid to share it on Patch. The littlest issue can set off dozens of comments.

Where there are no ads.

Someday, after all the research about smartphones is exhausted, someone smart will publish a quantitative study on the amount of time spent, page views, etc., in the comments sections of news sites.

And then, someone will invent a Disqus-like tool for advertising alongside comments. They will become fat, rich and happy.

For now, though, there’s not much to be happy about in Patchville.

The Hypocrites Of “New Media”

Lairig Marketing was the only blog we know of that predicted paywalls for online content would succeed. We talked about it way back when, for announced ventures such as Hulu Plus and The New York Times. Everyone else said they would fail.

Loyal readers know we periodically update you on the growing number of publishers joining the paywall trend. Which means it has indeed been a success. People will pay for valuable content.

So, we were about to update you on another paywall announcement, from Crain’s:

“Starting June 14, Crain's Chicago Business will introduce a metered subscription plan for its award-winning website...Every story, video and blog post, the complete weekly issue, plus 15 years of Crain's archives will be available…users will be able to view up to 12 Crain's articles per month at no charge and after that will be asked to pay $59 for an annual digital subscription.”

But then, nearly simultaneously, we came across a survey about online users’ behavior related to paywalls. What caught our eye was the target base of this study. Full results are available at DigiCareers, who conducted the survey “between April 16 and April 23, 2012 from more than 200 New Media professionals.”

Results include these highlights:

• 87% get their online news for free
• 52% abandon a site the second they come across a paywall
• 68% consider a prompt to pay to get further access to an article as “a trap”

We assume New Media professionals are people who work in the digital arena – media buyers, website designers and programmers, graphic artists, digital strategists, even a social media “guru” or three.

These are the people that should be the most in support of the sustainability of online content. It is their livelihood.

They should also understand the business model. They represent the cost basis of the industry. Just how the f&ck are they to be paid for if everyone behaves like they do?

To show how ignorant they really are on this critical business issue, 75% of survey participants said they would, or might, go back to a site they had abandoned earlier. Huh? Do these dopes expect the paywall would have later come down?

Paywalls aren’t going away. Hopefully, the “new media” hypocrites will.

Branded Content: What Jerry & George Were Trying To Say

Readers are dying to know: (a) was Lairig Marketing hacked yesterday and (b) what exactly were Jerry and George trying to say?

(a) Yes. Somehow Larry David stole our password and posted a little Seinfeld skit about Evian’s new microsite – “Evian. The Source.”

(b) Although Jerry and George were harsh in calling it “a site about nothing,” here is their point: branded content should be on brand.

Branded content is a good thing, generally. It is a 180-degree turn on the God-awful user-generated content we have trashed in a million prior posts. It is supposed to be words, pictures, video, etc., that a brand presents to the marketplace in hopes of deepening its relationships with customers. Anywhere along the marketing funnel.

A root word within “branded content” not to be overlooked, though, is BRAND. Meaning, the content a marketer presents should have a very identifiable connection to what the brand stands for, how it is positioned.

In Evian’s case, the idea to develop a site experience around “wonder” is laudable (and it hopefully gets a thousand web designers off their collective ass to vastly upgrade the look and feel of sites all across the Interwebs), but it is nothing that Evian has talked about before.

The Evian brand has long been positioned around its “pure and mineral-balanced water” and how it supports a body’s youth. Over the past several years, that has been manifested in the “baby” theme. Roller babies, the baby inside, baby dance, etc. Evian’s YouTube channel is even titled “Evian Babies.”

“The source/wonder” initiative comes a bit from left field. It could have just as easily been a site about “magic,” “dreams,” “the quest,” “progress,” etc. And it could have been brought to you by any of ten-thousand other brands. As Jerry intimated in yesterday’s post – this just as inconsequentially could have been from Pepsi.

Here’s what we “wonder” – what happens to those Evian babies now?